Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
If you read a report sponsored by the Flat Earth Society in which an independent research organization found the world to be flat, would you believe it? I'd guess not, but any reputable research organization hired to survey the society's membership on the question would have to come to that conclusion -- and I don't think you could call the result dishonest. I found a whole bunch of examples just like this the other day when I followed up on a Microsoft ad urging me to "get the facts" on the relative cost performance of Linux versus Windows.
Re: Getting the Facts About Windows and Linux
Posted by: BlackHeart 2004-02-06 09:16:27 In reply to: Paul Murphy
I find it's not really sensible to believe either side in this particular arena. After all both sides have a high emotional or financial investment and aren't *that* interested in reality.
Re: Getting the Facts About Windows and Linux
Posted by: bangular 2004-02-06 13:23:30 In reply to: BlackHeart
Agreed. But the problem is that there are many higher ups whom do believe these "studies". And if there's no counter to their claims they become accepted as true amongst that crowd.
Re: Getting the Facts About Windows and Linux
Posted by: sjackman 2004-02-14 11:36:44 In reply to: bangular
Agreed as well, but even moreso is that for us to really progress as an industry we MUST and I repeat we MUST start removing our emotions from the issue. Emotions have no place in making objective technology decisions. i.e. when you're working on your car, you use the best tool for the job, right?
I believe Paul did a great job in objectifying many of the issues.
I would like to add one important food for thought... Use the best tool for the job. Also remove the damn 'free' element from the discussion because I hope we're past that with Paul's help (although there're other costs that preclude Linux from truly being 'free' from an real IT budget's perspective) I'm a proponent of both Linux and Windows in their particular places and they can co-exist just fine. As professionals shouldn't we start act as professionals?
I believe Paul did a great job in objectifying many of the issues.
I would like to add one important food for thought... Use the best tool for the job. Also remove the damn 'free' element from the discussion because I hope we're past that with Paul's help (although there're other costs that preclude Linux from truly being 'free' from an real IT budget's perspective) I'm a proponent of both Linux and Windows in their particular places and they can co-exist just fine. As professionals shouldn't we start act as professionals?
Re: Getting the Facts About Windows and Linux
Posted by: bangular 2004-02-06 08:39:43 In reply to: Paul Murphy
Paul, you get the big thumbs up. This is one of the first article's seen that does more than just dismiss MS's research as biased. It points out specific examples.
.
The part I think is most interesting is the 800-2000 dollars a year for Linux. That includes support. But! Most linux distributions have an open source license. Meaning, if you do buy an expensive distribution, you can legally copy it to your hearts delight. More than that, Gentoo, Debian, LFS, *BSD, Slackware are all non-commercial and FREE for everyone (there's a million more, but those are the one's off the top of my head). So when purchasing these, your costs come down to the cost of download it and burning it to a cd.
.
On top of that, you don't need support licenses. Once they are up and running, you basically do not have to touch them. Many times, if properly set up, the only security patches you'd need to get are for network daemons. My desktop linux system sees uptimes of more than 6 months at a time. Servers with a UPS, sometimes more than 2 years (and they don't need to go down because of the OS, but things like they have to be moved, etc. etc.).
.
The really sad part of this though is CEO's and CTO's generally take MS BS as truth. If people _really_ knew the truth, do you think we'd see ANYONE running IIS with SQL server and Exchange?
.
The part I think is most interesting is the 800-2000 dollars a year for Linux. That includes support. But! Most linux distributions have an open source license. Meaning, if you do buy an expensive distribution, you can legally copy it to your hearts delight. More than that, Gentoo, Debian, LFS, *BSD, Slackware are all non-commercial and FREE for everyone (there's a million more, but those are the one's off the top of my head). So when purchasing these, your costs come down to the cost of download it and burning it to a cd.
.
On top of that, you don't need support licenses. Once they are up and running, you basically do not have to touch them. Many times, if properly set up, the only security patches you'd need to get are for network daemons. My desktop linux system sees uptimes of more than 6 months at a time. Servers with a UPS, sometimes more than 2 years (and they don't need to go down because of the OS, but things like they have to be moved, etc. etc.).
.
The really sad part of this though is CEO's and CTO's generally take MS BS as truth. If people _really_ knew the truth, do you think we'd see ANYONE running IIS with SQL server and Exchange?
Re: Getting the Facts About Windows and Linux
Posted by: kermitjunior 2004-02-05 21:27:54 In reply to: Paul Murphy
Just wanted to say thanks for a great article. Actually made me think... not about how MS spins the truth (I already knew that) but just learning some new terms for it!
